Ex Parte Yamada et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJul 29, 201612563359 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 29, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 12/563,359 09/21/2009 27562 7590 08/02/2016 NIXON & V ANDERHYE, P,C 901 NORTH GLEBE ROAD, 11 TH FLOOR ARLINGTON, VA 22203 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Y oichi Yamada UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE United States Patent and Trademark Office Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS P.O. Box 1450 Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450 www .uspto.gov ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. MEN-723-2640 6248 EXAMINER YEN,JASONTAHAI ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3716 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 08/02/2016 ELECTRONIC Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding. The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication. Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the following e-mail address( es): PTOMAIL@nixonvan.com pair_nixon@firsttofile.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte YO I CHI YAMADA, DAIKI IWAMOTO, and SHIROU MOURI Appeal2013-009030 Application 12/563,359 1 Technology Center 3700 Before ANTON W. PETTING, CYNTHIA L. MURPHY, and KENNETH G. SCHOPPER, Administrative Patent Judges. SCHOPPER, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the rejection of claims 1 and 8-16. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. BACKGROUND According to Appellants: The present invention relates to a game program and a game apparatus. More specifically, the present invention relates to a game apparatus and a game program therefor for which an object moves along a route designated by a user within a game space including a first area, such as a floor, a ground or the like 1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Nintendo Co. Ltd. Appeal Br. 3. Appeal2013-009030 Application 12/563,359 and a second area where continuity of the movement of the object in the first area is interrupted, such as a wall, another floor or a ground different in height, or a pond (water surface) or the like. Spec. 1, 11. 11-16. CLAIMS Claims 1 and 8-16 are on appeal. Claim 1 is illustrative of the appealed claims and recites: 1. A non-transitory storage medium storing a program so as to be readable by a computer of a game apparatus, said program causes said computer to execute instructions comprising: displaying on a display a game space including a first area and a second area where continuity of a movement of an object within said first area is interrupted; moving said object along a route that a user designates within said game space while sequentially taking a point position on said route as a target; determining whether or not a predetermined area associated with said object moving along said route, in a case that said object enters a next point position on said route, enters said second area over a border between said first area and said second area; setting said next point position as a target position when it is not determined that said predetermined area enters said second area at said next point position; correcting said next point position so as to become a target position within said first area when it is determined that said predetermined area enters said second area in said next point position; and moving said object to said target position. Appeal Br. 21. 2 Appeal2013-009030 Application 12/563,359 REJECTIONS 1. The Examiner rejects claims 1 and 9-16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Tsujino2 in view ofDunn. 3 2. The Examiner rejects claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Tsujino in view of Dunn, Hubrecht,4 and Hashimoto. 5 DISCUSSION Appellants raise separate arguments with respect to each of claims 1, 9, 13, and 8. We address each of these claims separately below. Claim 1 The Examiner finds that Tsujino discloses a method as claimed except that "Tsujino does not explicitly disclose a predetermined area being associated with said object enters the second area over a border," for which the Examiner relies on Dunn. Final Act. 3---6. The Examiner concludes that "it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to utilize the collision detection method as taught by Dunn into the virtual game of Tsujino in order provide game designers a simple method of collision detection in the virtual space." Id. at 6. As discussed below, we are not persuaded of error by Appellants' arguments. 2 Tsujino et al., US 2009/0104990 Al, pub. Apr. 23, 2009. 3 Dunn, "2D Game Primer (Visual C#)," http://channel9 .msdn.com/ coding4 fun/ articles/2D-Game-Primer-Visua 1-C (accessed on Nov. 2, 2011; posted on Feb. 20, 2007). 4 Hubrecht et al., US 2003/0117402 Al, pub. June 26, 2003. 5 Hashimoto, US 2011/0039620 Al, pub. Feb. 17, 2011. 3 Appeal2013-009030 Application 12/563,359 Tsujino discloses a method in which a player character in a video game may be navigated around an object when an obstacle lies in the player character's proposed path, i.e. the path chosen by the game player for the character. Tsujino determines whether the straight line route to the destination would encounter an obstacle, and if it would, the path is adjusted to go around the obstacle. See, e.g., Tsujino i-fi-f 112-113. Dunn teaches that it was known to determine whether an area enters another area in a game, i.e. discloses "Simple Collision Detection" in the form of "Checking for rectangle overlap." Dunn 4. Appellants first assert that Tsujino accomplishes a route adjustment by determining if an obstacle exists along a particular route; that Tsujino "is not determining if a predetermined area associated with a player character will cross over a boundary between the area in which the player character can move and an area within the obstacle," and, thus, Tsujino is not setting or correcting the next point position by determining whether a predetermined area enters a second area as required by the claim. Appeal Br. 14. Appellants also argue with respect to Tsujino that: One of ordinary skill would understand that a route in which a player character would move does not reasonably correspond to a predetermined area of the player character. Thus, Tsujino is only looking to the path of the route to see ifthe character would encounter an obstacle, not whether a predetermined area associated with the player character crosses over a boundary of the obstacle. Reply Br. 2. These arguments do not show error in the rejection because, as noted above, the Examiner acknowledges that Tsujino does not expressly disclose 4 Appeal2013-009030 Application 12/563,359 determining whether a predetermined area enters second area, and the Examiner relies on Dunn to cure this deficiency. Appellants also argue that Dunn fails to cure the deficiency in Tsujino. Appeal Br. 14--15. Specifically, Appellants argue that Dunn discloses only making a determination of whether a single sprite or point is within a particular range and not a determination "if the area of the sprite is within a second region." Id. at 15. Appellants also assert that a single sprite or point cannot be understood to correspond to a predetermined area associated with an object. Reply Br. We are not persuaded. Appellants' argument focuses on the specific algorithm provided in Dunn of detecting a collision and ignores the broader concept of determining whether one rectangle, which may be considered the claimed predetermined area, overlaps another rectangle, which may be considered the claimed second area, to determine whether a collision is occurring or will occur. Appellants have not shown any error in the Examiner's reliance on this concept in the proposed combination. Based on the foregoing, we find that the Examiner established a prima facie showing of obviousness with respect to claim 1 without error. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 1. For the same reasons, we sustain the rejection of independent claims 14, 15, and 16 and dependent claims 4--7 and 10-12, for which Appellants do not raise separate arguments. Claim 9 With respect to claim 9, Appellants argue only that Tsujino does not correct a route when a predetermined area enters a second area and that Dunn only detects a collision if a single sprite point satisfies a condition. Appeal Br. 3--4. We are not persuaded of error for the reasons discussed 5 Appeal2013-009030 Application 12/563,359 above with respect to claim 1. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 9. Claim 13 Claim 13 depends from claim 12 and requires that "said program causes said computer to further execute instructions comprising setting said predetermined area with reference to said associated image." Appeal Br. 24. Claim 12 depends from claim 1 and recites "an associated image being associated with said object is displayed together with said object on said display." Id. The Examiner finds that Tsujino discloses setting a predetermined area with reference to an associated image. Final Act. 7 (citing Tsujino Fig. 5; i-f 100). Appellants argue that "Tsujino explains that in the embodiments of the invention, the player symbol 1 and dinosaur symbol 2a are not actually symbols of the shapes, but rather true representative shapes using three-dimensional polygon models of the objects" and that "even if Tsujino employs three-dimensional polygon models of the object, such a disclosure is not analogous to setting a predetermined area with reference to the three-dimensional polygon models." Id. Tsujino discloses: The player symbol 1 and the dinosaur symbol2a are not symbols of the shapes shown in FIG. 5 in the embodiments, and objects with near true representative shapes using the three- dimensional polygon models of a person (hunter) and a dinosaur are displayed. When applied to home-use game devices including a game device using an external monitor and a portable, small-sized game device, an embodiment may be employed in which the player can select a display form. Tsujino i-f 100. 6 Appeal2013-009030 Application 12/563,359 We are not persuaded of error. The claim requires only that the predetermined area is set "with reference to said associated image." Tsujino discloses, with reference to Figure 5, that "a player symbol 1 indicating the present position of the virtual player ... [is] displayed." That the player symbol 1, i.e. the associated image, is located at the present position of the virtual player is enough to show that a predetermined area, i.e. the area of virtual player, is set with reference to that associated image. To the extent Appellants are arguing that the size and/ or shape of the associated image must correspond or match the predetermined area, such an argument is not commensurate with the scope of the claim. For this reason, we sustain the rejection of claim 13. Claim 8 Claim 8 requires determining whether the object arrives at a target position within a predetermined time and suspending movement of the object if it does not. See Appeal Br. 23. The Examiner relies on Hashimoto as teaching the limitations added by this claim. See Final Act. 8-9 (citing Hashimoto Fig. 7; i-fi-170, 89-90.). As discussed below, we are not persuaded of error by Appellants' arguments. Hashimoto describes a method of determining whether an object arrives at a goal before time expires and indicates that when time expires "an end process of the game of the stage is performed." Hashimoto Fig. 7; i170. Appellants acknowledge that "[a ]t best, Hashimoto prevents the player from advancing in the game if the player has not reached the goal before time expires." Appeal Br. 19. However, Appellants argue that "[o]ne of ordinary skill would understanding that ending a level in the game (thereby ending 7 Appeal2013-009030 Application 12/563,359 movement of the player character) does not correspond to suspending movement of the player character during the game." Reply Br. 5. We disagree. Appellants acknowledge that Hashimoto teaches ending player movement when time expires, and one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the game, and thus player movement, could be restarted. Thus, Hashimoto at least suggests that ending player movement is only temporary and may be restarted, i.e. that player movement is suspended. For this reason, we sustain the rejection of claim 8. CONCLUSION For the reasons set forth above, we affirm the rejections of claims 1 and 8-16. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv). AFFIRMED 8 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation